Two terms that often confuse us:
1. Freedom of Speech -
"The right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to communicate ideas and opinions without government intervention."You have a right to hold and freely express an opinion contrary to mine.
2. Hate Speech"Speech not protected by the Constitution, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification."Thus, the argument against Kadhi's courts in itself is NOT hate speech. It is the
REASON why someone is against the courts that would make it hate speech or intolerance.
E.g. (and without dwelling on the merits/demerits of the arguments themselves) if I say Kadhi's courts are inappropriate because this elevates one religion above the rest, that is NOT hate speech.
But if I say Kadhi's courts are part of a wider scheme by the Muslims to introduce Sharia Law nationwide (beheading, amputations, stoning etc), that may border on hate speech.
Invoking the right to freedom of speech/expression can and is often abused. But so is use of the term intolerance and hate speech in silencing unpopular opinions.
Granted the line marking intolerance territory is often very grey. But there is no need for people to get all rabid in their positions for or against. After all, you only have one vote and you will either vote YES or NO. Wacha debe iamue.
Katika Jangwa la Jangili ndipo Pwagu hupata Pwaguzi.